4 ms·
You're still cutting your annual income in half though. That's pretty big no?
by Salgat 4mo ago
You're still cutting your annual income in half though. That's pretty big no?
- dw_arthur 4mo agoI don't have a family, so it's manageable. If I had kids there is no way I could work part-time.
- jbmchuck 4mo agoI have the same feelings as the original poster as I get further into middle age and have a good retirement nest egg - for me there are things more valuable - free time and the things I want to do with it but can't get paid to do - than making more income than I really need.
- jr3592 4mo agoHow much do you have saved?
- jbmchuck 4mo agoEnough that a 5% annual return is enough for me to get by. I'm certainly not done working - I want to get that to 3% or so - but it does make it a bit demotivating some days when I look outside and imagine the other things I could be doing with my time.
- jr3592 4mo agoI mean, I'm totally with you... It's just never clear to me what "enough" is.
- asdff 4mo agoLCOL a good house might be 140k outright. Their costs are probably barely anything yearly against their returns.
- bluecalm 4mo agoThe thing is at some point there is very little to gain. Once you have a nice place to live and don't need to sweat over daily expenses there isn't much that significantly improves life quality other than just having more time (that is working less) for yourself and your family. Add high taxes to this and working is even less attractive when they take 50% from you. No wonder many highly qualified people decide to pass on that deal and just do the bare minimum which in OP case is nothing.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]